Of course, I don't have a print source. I live in a world of electrons. So, the question is: does anyone know of any printed references to "blog" in 1999 that discuss its coinage? I know there was some early newspaper coverage back then, and articles found in newspapers online are likely also findable in their printed versions.

COMMENT #1OED requires a print source? Peter, did that strike you as odd, or downright funny? My coworkers had a good laugh.

I shudder at the idea that the print world has to recognize a characteristic of the online world before that characteristic is accepted as valid.

Don't you think more information is published electronically today than is printed? Google should be the first research tool OED turns to in determining word usage (at least among developed nations). If the word is being used by millions of people, why require a print source? I don't know whether to be mad or amused.
Posted by Jack @ 06/14/2002 08:26 AM PST [link to this comment]

COMMENT #2OEM is in print, Jack. If print is less relevant to you than pixels then why do you care if "blog" only qualifies in a print dictionary if it satisfies that dictionary's standard requirement of a print source? And your conceit that blog is a word used by millions of people is a hoot! I would suggest that only a very small coterie of--umm--bloggers ever deal in one way or another with the term. I have never used it before and, even though my son seems to have coined it, I still don't know what it means. Is it possible that there is yet no established consensus definition of the word? Maybe OEM will pioneer that effort.

As I wander through the solipsistic ephemera of the Internet I also wonder when some of you kids are going to wake up from your Vanilla Sky. Nobody lives in a world of electrons, we ourselves are electrons. All the atoms in all the universe contain electrons. What Peter seems to mean is that he lives in a world of easy electronic communication, and my biggest peeve against pixelated chatter is the general lack of care and accuracy in its formulation. Nowhere else (except possibly movie reviews) is careless thought so obviously exposed yet so readily accepted.
Posted by BJMe @ 06/14/2002 09:51 AM PST [link to this comment]

COMMENT #3Straw Man, I did not say print is less relevant than online.

I do believe that at least 2 million people know the word "blog." Perhaps OED should concern itself with scope of recognition. In a world of (at least) 6 billion, how many people need to know a word to make it worth documenting?

What makes you think I am a kid? But more importantly, why do you level such a cheap shot at my credibility by way of ageism? You do a disservice to our youth.

Please explain why you consider it appropriate for OED to require a print reference to an online word. Seeing a word used in print does not add credibility or substance to that word. If OED or you still believe that, you missed the desktop publishing revolution twenty years ago.
Posted by Jack @ 06/14/2002 01:50 PM PST [link to this comment]

COMMENT #4On page 3 of my upcoming book I say 'Peter Merholz announced on his site that he was going to pronounce it "wee-blog" and it was only a matter of weeks before the abbreviation "blog" began appearing as an alternate form.' will that work?

the book will be in US bookstores no later than july 2, and will be available in the UK in august, as I understand the timeline.

COMMENT #5oh, and in a way I can see why they require a print reference, though I don't think that's going to work for them long term.

print is unchanging; on the other hand, I could go back into my archives and change anything at will. online sources--which are frequently changed without notice--are potentially misleading in a way that print is not.

still, this is going to be a problem, I think. too much coinage is happening online and only adopted in print later on. it may be that they will need to designate the internet archive as an authoritative source.
Posted by rebecca blood @ 06/14/2002 02:50 PM PST [link to this comment]

COMMENT #6You could just print off the relevant posts and mail them to the OED folks. Surely they'll accept correspondence as a print source.
Posted by Gene @ 06/14/2002 03:25 PM PST [link to this comment]

COMMENT #7Rebecca, point taken on the changeability of web pages. However, consider this.... How many print sources does OED need to legitimize the word "blog?" Does one usage make the word legitimate?

If the web was a citable source, I would not rely on a single web page. I would create a formula/matrix for judging word usage. The matrix would consider #1 how many web pages reference the word and #2 the type of web page using the word (company, news gathering organization, school, personal site, etc.). There are probably many other matrix considerations. The bottom line is that risk of "changeability" is minimized because you're considering thousands of online sources, not a handful, or one.

For me, Google's search results showing that 1.3 million pages contain the word "blog" is a much more important fact than a single book by Rebecca Blood. It may be a fantastic book, but the global community of web publishers carry more weight, IMHO, than a handful of print sources.
Posted by Jack @ 06/14/2002 03:42 PM PST [link to this comment]

COMMENT #8(I wasn't arguing the weight of print against Web, I was just offering peter a print source, since he asked for one. if one from 2002 will do.)
Posted by rebecca blood @ 06/14/2002 04:02 PM PST [link to this comment]

COMMENT #9also, I don't think the inclusion of the word "blog" is in question--I believe the print source is necessary in order for peter to get credit for coining the word. almost none of the authors of those 1.3 million pages containing the word blog have any idea who peterme is, much less cite him for coining the term.
Posted by rebecca blood @ 06/14/2002 04:06 PM PST [link to this comment]

COMMENT #11Hi, we here at New Riders just wanted to let you all know --- since Peter would be too modest to tell you himself! --- that we've just signed him to write a book called "BLOG: The True Story of How I Invented the Greatest Jargon Word Ever".

It will be a fully illustrated account of how Peter managed to come up with the word `BLOG' and its subsequent viral spread across the whole Internet! We're hoping to get it in stores by Christmas.

COMMENT #12Jack posts: "Don't you think more information is published electronically today than is printed? Google should be the first research tool OED turns to in determining word usage (at least among developed nations). If the word is being used by millions of people, why require a print source?"

Why require a print source? you ask, rhetorically, because, Jack, your question is really your statement that print is irrelevant. You can't even read and understand your own ideas. You don't need me to do it, you shoot down your own credibility with your poor use of logic, language and syntax.

Nor can I accurately be charged with ageism in this regard, which is universally defined and understood as discrimination against and stereotyping of older persons--such as myself. But I can be charged with youthism, because I have no patience with kids of any age who prattle without thought or discernment and then share a good giggle with co-workers over other workers' standards and practices of which they have no apparent respect or understanding.

If you, Jack, are still a child, then you have the right to be immature, but not forever. Sooner or later you will have to grow up. If you are not a child at this time, then your intellectual maturation seems to be behind schedule. In either circumstance, I hope this exchange, and the comments of others I have noted above, help you in that regard.

I would also recommend that you pick up a little pocket dictionary to start with, and, who knows--you may someday find value in an encyclopedia, or even a public library. Good luck.
Posted by BJMe @ 06/14/2002 11:31 PM PST [link to this comment]

I can't debate with someone fabricating statements I obviously did not make, nor intend. Go ahead and conclude any outlandish thing you want. I work in print journalism, you fool. Funny thing for a "kid" to do, huh?
Posted by Straw Man @ 06/15/2002 08:37 AM PST [link to this comment]

COMMENT #14(That last post was from me. 'Straw Man' is what I call BJMe... just typed the post a little too quickly out of disguest. Of course I don't expect him to understand the reference.)
Posted by Jack @ 06/15/2002 08:39 AM PST [link to this comment]

COMMENT #16From what I understand, the dictionary was meant to record the evolution of our culture in the words we use -- whether they be spoken, printed, or online. I think that _where_ they are present (print, online, spoken) is irrelevant, it is simply _that_ they are used that is relevant. I think this is your point, Jack, right? -- not that the Internet is more important than print, but that it's silly to recognize only print as the only place where words exist in our culture. It's rather outdated that they require print source to prove that a word actually exsists. Funny to require that for a word like "blog" that exists primarily online.

"...Sources only available on CD-ROM or the Internet have been used for the first time in the Dictionary. Online editions of newspapers, for example, are now regularly cited, and large textual databases such as the Chadwyck-Healey Literature Online and the Making of America database of early American texts are monitored for useful material. These and others have considerably enhanced the variety of material cited in the revised entries, and doubtless many other similar sources will become available in the future. However, they are most conveniently used by dictionary editors for subsequent research once a lexical item has been identified for possible inclusion; traditional ‘reading’ is still, in most cases, the most efficient method of making this initial identification, especially when dealing with words having many different meanings, which are very frequently attested in machine-readable collections."
Posted by BJMe @ 06/15/2002 09:12 PM PST [link to this comment]

COMMENT #18I shudder at the idea that the print world has to recognize a characteristic of the online world before that characteristic is accepted as valid. -- Jack

Seems this discussion took off in a bad direction from the very first post: the issue appears to be one of citation, not recognition.
Posted by Eric Scheid @ 06/16/2002 11:21 AM PST [link to this comment]

COMMENT #19If you, Jack, are still a child, then you have the right to be immature, but not forever. Sooner or later you will have to grow up. If you are not a child at this time, then your intellectual maturation seems to be behind schedule. In either circumstance, I hope this exchange, and the comments of others I have noted above, help you in that regard.

Seems to me that part of growing up is learning to not take oneself too seriously. Scolding strangers on the internet for being imprecise in debating dictionary standards seems a poor example of "adulthood".
Posted by Anil @ 06/17/2002 12:00 AM PST [link to this comment]

COMMENT #20I'm guessing the issue is, fifty years from now, being able to track the original reference down to double-check it. Printed stuff is regularly archived and referencable, whereas Peter's essay on blogging may be long lost in the electron epherma and no longer referencable.

Until many people are using a common reference structure for archiving web sites, they can't really be counted on for historical reference.

COMMENT #21Oh, hell, talk directly to the people on St Giles' about it. As others have said, print sources are good for covering their arses, but the point is that dictionaries are, themselves, more likely to outlast the ephemeral magazines and newspapers (and web sites) that coin words.
Posted by Nick @ 06/20/2002 04:03 PM PST [link to this comment]

COMMENT #22Hey, I used to call dog crap "blog" when I was a kid about 25 years ago, obviously it never went into print or online, but does it make it any less of a word.

Do more than 2-3 people have to use a word to make it real.
Posted by Mark @ 07/28/2002 05:12 PM PST [link to this comment]

COMMENT #23For what it's worth, the OED is available online and has been for a year or two. And it's been available on CD for a reasonable bit longer.

Print references are good because they can be well cited and won't change. Tyipcally the OED requires around 3 citations for a word: first use, common use, and a use making the meaning clear.

Naturally, for "blog", a number of citations would be needed given the number of definitions people have for it. Or one well worded, all encompassing definition.
Posted by Iain @ 08/03/2002 10:41 PM PST [link to this comment]